2024/12/21

 The following documents submitted to the Supreme Court have been made public in the litigation documents section.

 1. Statement of grounds for appeal (explaining the errors in the Fukuoka High Court ruling and the unconstitutionality of Article 11, paragraph 1 of the Nationality Law) and its summary

 2. Statement of grounds for appeal (explaining that the Fukuoka High Court ruling is contrary to the Supreme Court precedents and etc.) and its summary

 3. 13 supplementary documents

 4. Explanation of Evidence

The materials from the report meeting held following the appellate court ruling in Lawsuit 1 have been made public.

[CASE 1] Appeal Court Judgment Date Report Meeting Materials (2nd installment)_20241012

The High Court ruling on Lawsuit 1 has been made public.

[Lawsuit 1] 20241010 High Court ruling

In addition, the Lists evidence explanation documents submitted in Lawsuit 1 have been made public for both the district court and the high court.

District Court

[Lawsuit 1] District Court/Evidence Explanation (1)

[Lawsuit 1] District Court/Evidence Explanation (2)

[Lawsuit 1] District Court/Evidence Explanation (3)

[Lawsuit 1] District Court/Evidence Explanation (4)

[Lawsuit 1] District Court/Evidence Explanation (5)

[Lawsuit 1] District Court/Evidence Explanation (6)

[Lawsuit 1] District Court/Evidence Explanation (7)

High Court

[Litigation 1] Explanation of evidence - High Court (1)

[Litigation 1] Evidence Explanation - High Court (2)

[Litigation 1] Explanation of evidence - High Court (3)

1. Documents, etc.

 The appellant submitted a statement of grounds for appeal (February 15, 2024), and the appellee (the government) filed a rebuttal to the statement.

 A reply was submitted (June 18, 2024).

 In response to this, the appellant submitted;

 Preparatory document (1) ; Rebuttal to the Rebuttal

 Preparatory document (2) ; Additional arguments

 ①Framework of the Grand Bench decision on unconstitutionality on October 26, 2023

 ② Inconsistency between past Supreme Court rulings and Article 11, Paragraph 1 of the Nationality Act

 3) Asahi Shimbun Survey: "Thinking about dual nationality"

 ④ Commentary on important precedents in FY2023 by Professor Kazuhiko Matsumoto and Professor Akiko Tateda

 Preparatory document (3) ; Additional investigation results (past information on the Ministry of Justice website)

 However, the respondent (the government) did not respond in any way.

 The appellant also submitted a request for witness testimony and a request for the commission of delivery of documents. Both requests were rejected.

 2. Statement of the appellant's own opinion

 3. Conclusion

 The trial concluded, and the date for the judgement to be announced was set for Thursday, October 10th at 1:25 p.m.

 20240713 Report meeting materials.pdf

1. Plaintiff’s Preparatory Brief (3) has been submitted.

　This document argues that Article 11, paragraph 1 of the Nationality Law does not apply when a legal representative carries out the procedure for a minor to acquire foreign nationality. We also submitted the minutes of the Diet etc. as evidence.

　A statement from the plaintiff's mother was read by her attorney, in which she argued that it would be cruel to apply Article 11, Paragraph 1 of the Nationality Act to the plaintiff, her son.

　In addition, the plaintiffs' legal team made a statement regarding the unconstitutionality of Article 11, Paragraph 1 of the Nationality Act.

 2. The trial concluded today.

　The next date will be the verdict date. (October 17, 2024, from 1:15 p.m.) 

Based on the results of the investigation commissioned to Setagaya Ward, the plaintiff requested a further investigation commission.

The defendant is to submit a statement of opinion on this matter by July 8th, and the court will decide whether to issue an investigation request based on the contents of that statement.

At the next court date, the plaintiff will submit written arguments outlining her claim for state compensation accusing a failure of the government's system design.

◎The lawsuit was filed to the Osaka District Court on December 21, 2022 .

◎ First oral argument date: May 26, 2023

 The defendant submitted a document (including exhibits) in response to the complaint.

 ◎ July 14, 2023: Second oral argument date

 The plaintiff submitted the preparatory document (1) , which is a rebuttal to the defendant's reply.

 ◎July 24, 2023

 The plaintiff submitted the preparatory document (2) . This is a document arguing that the national government is responsible for the Setagaya Ward Office's refusal to accept the notification of loss of Japanese nationality submitted by the plaintiff.

 ◎Third oral argument date: September 29, 2023

 The defendant submitted the first preparatory brief . This is a counterargument to the plaintiff's preparatory document (1) and (2). It argues that the national government is not responsible even if Setagaya Ward rejects the notification of loss of nationality submitted by the plaintiff.

 ◎ 4th oral argument date: November 22, 2023

 The plaintiff submitted the preparatory document (3) , which is a rebuttal to the defendant's the first preparatory document.

 ◎5th oral argument date: December 22, 2023

 The plaintiff submitted the preparatory document (4) . This is a document that summarizes and explains the government's responsibility.

 February 20, 2024

 The plaintiff submitted a notice of lawsuit to Setagaya Ward .

 ◎ 6th oral argument date: February 28, 2024

 The defendant submitted the second preparatory document.

 The court reported that it had sent a notice of lawsuit to Setagaya Ward.

 ◎7th oral argument date: April 19, 2024

 The plaintiff has submitted the preparatory document (5) .

 It points out the errors in the September 2023 First Petty Bench decision of the Supreme Court and the December 2023 Fukuoka District Court decision, in lawsuits which challenges the constitutionality of Article 11, Paragraph 1 of the Nationality Law, and argues that the September 2023 First Petty Bench decision of the Supreme Court cannot be upheld in the future due to the Supreme Court Grand Bench decision the following month. New information on international situations, etc. was also provided.

 It is essential for the plaintiff to know the specific reasons behind the September 2023 decision of the First Petty Bench of the Supreme Court in order to properly present her claims. However, the specific reasons are unclear.

 Therefore, the  plaintiff submitted a document requesting the Supreme Court to send the "Researcher's report" that was the basis for the decision. This request was rejected. Good grief!

 The plaintiff submitted a petition for investigation to Setagaya Ward .

 The petition calls for an investigation, because  there is a suspicion that, when the plaintiff went to the Setagaya Ward office to file a notification of loss of nationality, the ward consulted with the national government on how to respond.

 The state was asked to conduct its own investigation into this matter.

 The next oral argument date will be held

 on Friday, June 14, 2024 at 11:00 a.m. (Osaka District Court, Courtroom 1007) .

 Depending on the results of the government's investigation, preparations for the examination of evidence (witness examination and examination of the plaintiff herself) will begin.

This is the material (expanded version) of the report meeting following the judgment in Litigation 1.

20231209 Judgment date report meeting materials (after the second round) CALL4-2.pdf

 We have added comments received at the report meeting and supplemented the explanation.

 (Comments from the defense team following the judgement) 

The decision is commendable in that it recognizes the relationship between nationality and identity, and that it is necessary to respect as much as possible the wishes of the individual regarding the loss of Japanese nationality.

The district and high courts in the Tokyo lawsuit did not hesitate to take away Japanese nationality by law, claiming that it is merely a status conferred by law. This is an idea from an era when Japanese nationality indicated the status of "subjects.

The Fukuoka District Court did not think in such a way and tried to grasp the significance of Japanese nationality from the starting point of the Japanese Constitution. This is a wonderful and significant step forward.

However, it still does not go far enough.

For example, the failure to recognize the constitutional guarantee of the right not to be deprived of Japanese nationality against one's will is a serious problem.

Article 22(2) of the Constitution guarantees the freedom to renounce one's nationality. It guarantees a person's right to choose where to spend his/her life, a concept that is connected to Article 13 of the Constitution, which guarantees the "right to the pursuit of happiness. It is a clear contradiction that "one can freely renounce one's Japanese nationality" but "the right to be a Japanese citizen is not guaranteed under the Constitution.

In addition, while "it is necessary to respect the will of the individual as much as possible with regard to the loss of Japanese nationality," the conclusion that "the individual had the opportunity to choose between Japanese and foreign nationality when applying for and acquiring foreign nationality because of the provision of Article 11, paragraph 1" ultimately shows no respect for the individual's will.

In fact, since the plaintiff was unaware of Article 11, Section 1, and did not know that she would lose her Japanese citizenship if she acquired U.S. citizenship, it cannot be said that she had an "opportunity to choose between U.S. and Japanese citizenship. In this respect, there is a major inconsistency in the judgment.

Another problem with the Fukuoka District Court decision is that, although it goes much further than the decisions of the Tokyo District Court and the Tokyo High Court, it follows the law and the status quo with regard to the anguish and plight of overseas residents and the disconnect between the law and reality.

There are a number of other issues that still need to be defeated, and we are determined to make a strong case to the Court of Appeals to further advance our arguments.

The Fukuoka District Court decision, despite some problems with its logic and conclusions, was an advance not only in the discussion of Article 11, Paragraph 1 of the Nationality Law, but also in the discussion of multiple nationalities. We hope to use the advancements made in the ruling as a bridgehead for a reversal of the decision in the appeals court.

We appreciate your continued attention and support for the lawsuit.

The plaintiff has submitted a preliminary document (1) .

 This is a written rebuttal to the defendant's brief (1).

 The characteristics of the plaintiff's brief (1) are as follows:

 ① The main points of the plaintiff's claim are explained concisely by referring to the complaint;

 ② The contradictions and unreasonableness of the defendant's claims were brought to light and thoroughly investigated;

 The defendant has indicated his intention to submit a document attempting to refute the plaintiff's preliminary document (1).

 Once the defendant submits this document, both parties' legal arguments will be almost over.

 Therefore, the plaintiff's attorney indicated his intention to proceed with preparations for conducting the interrogation (preparing a written statement, etc.). We plan to submit a written statement at the earliest next time.

 The next date is Tuesday, February 6, 2024 from 11:00.

The materials of the first to third reporting sessions for Case 1 are as follows.

20220803 1st date report meeting materials.pdf

20221203 2nd date report meeting materials (2nd edition).pdf

20230313 3rd due date report meeting materials (2nd edition).pdf